About your Search

20121201
20121231
STATION
MSNBCW 13
CNNW 9
MSNBC 5
CSPAN2 4
KQED (PBS) 4
WBAL (NBC) 2
CNN 1
CSPAN 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 54
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)
these are people who spent their whole lives dealing with the fall-out of roe v. wade. they have seen what it's done the court and the country. further more, they can see the political movement is accelerating among the people and there may not be a need for court. >> john: snarl >> ironically, justice ginsberg stalwart liberal of court in a speech before going on the court talked about roe v. wade as stopping the natural evolution and political accept tans of what was the more changing on abortion and that it caused the strife. the one lesson is that allow the process to develop through referenda and popular vote. if there is a change in the culture, it will happen. do not impose a rule on the country from above, because if they impose on the country same-sex marriage, it will cause the reaction on abortion. people will feel they don't have a voice and they should in a democracy. >> john: all right. you won this week's viewers' choice, 74% goes to you. what is the question? >> landslide. the question is in three months, will bashar assad be president of syria? in exile in iran or russia? or
, especially justice roberts court is wary of roe v. wade and will not throw out arrangements in 30 or 40 states and will resolve the case. only section 3 is as issue. i believe the court does not want to be overturning arrangements throughout the country on something to delicate. they've learned a lesson that that's not the right role. >> that's talk about that. people are making the comparison to 1973, roe v. wade. 37 states, by law or in their constitutions now ban same-sex marriage but they're legal in nine states as well as the nation's capital, washington, d.c. a new poll, 40% say they approve same-sex marriage. 30% support legal unions, 24% say same-sex couples should not be allowed to enter in any union. president obama has come out in favor of same-sex marriage though he wants to leave it to the state issue. some people as bill suggested are comparing this to the 70s when opinion was evolving on abortion. the states seemed to work it out and the court came down with a big ruling and 40 years later we're having a holy war on the issue. how do you see the court reacting? do you see
or is it going to be one of those once in a generation social civil rights type cases like roe v. wade or brown v.s. board of education? and i think nobody knows. >> how much attention do you think they give to that, to public opinion? where the public stands on an issue? and growing sentiment? >> it's a great question. i mean, if you look at the evolving public opinion on this, there were polls in 2004 that were taken by gallup and "washington post" and other people that showed about 60% of the public opposed same-sex marria marriage. gallup had a poll out that showed 53% support and about 40% oppose. there are measures on state ballots around the country last month, and all for of them, the same-sex marriage side won. so the justices can see the trend. in that gallup poll, more than 70% of young people support same-sex marriage. the question is, do they see themselves stopping something they think is moving too fast? or do they want to make sure they're not behind the curve of history? >> well, it's clear that the people that were against gay marriage, they were happy about this today. even tho
ruling. if the supreme court does for gay marriage what it did for abortion and roe v. wade and said, no, this is not in the hands of the people. we're going to say there's gay marriage, that would do a lot to fire up the republican base and could turn this issue on its head and it could become a big winner for republicans because they'd feel disenfranchised. >> what about the flip side? what if the republican goes that way, their base doesn't get fired up. democrats have relied on saying to some voters, that other party is not with you. if the republican got with them, does that take this off the table for democrats? >> well, i actually think it takes it off the table and that's good news for americans in general. i mean, i think this issue is a little bit broader than politics. and i know that's weird to say here in washington, but what i think the problem with the stance that the republican party has taken right now is that it's on the wrong side of history. and we have seen throughout history that when there's a group of people that want to deny another group of people less rights an
angeles. >>> headquarters in atlanta this is "early start weekend." some are calling it the next roe v. wade. the issue the u.s. supreme court agreed to take on that will make history. >> all of those who argued for nonintervention because of the things that might happen have now happened because we failed to intervene. >>> when is enough enough? that is the question many are asking about syria as the death toll climbs and concerns mount over chemical weapons and some lawmakers are saying it is too late to stop mass destruction. >>> what is going on with netflix? another major blunder by the ceo. why he is being investigated by the ccc. >>> it is saturday, december 8th. good morning, everyone. i'm randi kaye. victor blackwell is off today. we start with a landmark decision by the supreme court. the justices decided to hear two ca cases. joe johns has a look. >> randi, after weeks of speculation the court decided to take up two cases on same-sex marriage. the first one about the defensive marriage act. windsor against the united states. they were married in toronto, canada, in 2007. spi
. they expect the supreme court to be the ultimate decider for the nation. >> it would be the roe v. wade of our generation. >> reporter: they have their critics, conservative legal analyst ed whalen. >> there is nothing in the constitution properly construing that remotely supports a right to same sex marriage. >> reporter: and even some of those who agree with olson and boies say that same sex marriage should be left to the states. there are lots of skeptics out there who say you're going too quickly here, and you're asking the supreme court to do a pretty heavy lift. >> every civil rights struggle, there have always been people who said you're moving too fast, country is not ready for it. how many people in 1954 were saying, country is not ready for desegregation, brown against board of education, too soon. >> reporter: but everyone says this is a conservative court. why are you doing it now? >> because ted is a conservative guy. there are lots of conservative people, the idea that civil rights and human rights is exclusively a liberal preserve, i think it is flat wrong. >> reporter: their cl
or disagrees with the notion of gay marriage. in 1992 in roe v. wade he wrote our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. he's personally opposed to abortion, but voteded in the opposite. there's also in 1996, kennedy was ruling -- voter measure that repealed gay rights ordnances. he wrote the measure was born of on nosty towards gays. the constitution prohibits laws signalling out citizens for general hardships. those are pretty strong words that sound as though he's in the bag. >> i would never consider any justice in the bag, but i think justice kennedy has some very powerful liberty rulings to be proud of and this will be should he rule the right way, consistent with his jurisprudence of liberty. i think all these judges have to ask themselves knowing where the country's going, where the people are, do i want to be the last gasp of prejudice or stand on the right side of history. >> as a final question, now that the court will likely make the decision, if it's not the decision that you are seeking, would you be regretful that the movement decided
much for joining us inside "the war room." tim dickinson of "rolling stone" magazine. roe v. wade is the law of the land. americans overwhelmingly support a woman's right to choose. michigan handed president obama a 9-point victory five weeks ago so when i see a legislative body sneakily passing anti-choice members in the proverbial dead of night the phrase subverting the will of the people seems mild. my thoughts on that right after the break. ♪ ♪ destined to take them over. the uconnect command center with sirius xm satellite radio in the new 2013 ram 1500. engineered to move heaven and earth. guts. glory. ram. >> jennifer: back in march of 1984 the owner of the baltimore colts moved baltimore's beloved football team to indianapolis. he said he wouldn't do it but in the middle of the night 12 mayflower moving trucks were hired to tear out the region's heart and soul under cover of darkness. it was incredibly unpopular extremely underhanded. and it devastated the people. it even brought baltimore's mayor to tears.
by the supreme court could result in the roe v. wade of guy rights. joining me now is political strategist steve elmendorf and chris geithner, senior political reporter for buzz feed. steve, i want to go to you first on this. there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of back and forth whether it's a good thing for marriage equality for the supreme court to take up these issues. some folks think better to leave it at the state level. there has been a lot of progress there. are you bullish or bearish on this? >> i'm bullish. i think the supreme court is going to do the right thing. you know, it's hard to predict, but i think the country has been moving so fast in the right direction. the court is not immune to public opinion. the court is not immune to the wind blowing through the country. and it's so clear where we're moving and the progress we've made in the last five years has been amazing. and i think the court is going to do the right thing. >> chris, let's talk a little bit about public opinion. because we have some polling that shows a breathtaking change of public opinion on this. in 20
. if it did that, that might result in what would essentially be the roe v. wade of gay rights. alex. >> taking up this prop 8 with california, would their ruling necessarily apply then only to california? >> that's possible. it's possible, because the appeals court ruling that comes to the supreme court was designed to apply only to california. what it said is once a state grants an essential right like this, it can't then take it away. remember in 2008 early in the year, this california supreme court permitted same-sex couples to get married, about 18,000 of them did. then prop 8 was passed in the general election putting a stop to it. so if the court just stops there, you're right. it would be a ruling that would apply only to california. if it decides to take that case and get to the constitutional question of whether any state for any reason can deny same-sex marriage couples the right to get married, then it would play nationwide. >> good to see you, pete. thank you. >> you bet. my pleasure. >> now the question of the day. what do you expect the supreme court to do on gay marri
of the same-sex marriage issue, and that could result in what would eventually be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> we are back on a big story that will become an even bigger story when we move forward, and that's the question of marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the country. speaker gingrich, you oppose same-sex marriage. do you think the tide is turning? we know it's turning in terms of public opinion. what does it mean they are taking this on? >> the justices looked at the question, if you're an american citizen and you are legally married in iowa, what happens if you visit another state and you end up in the hospital? do you have any visitation rights? once this has begun to move, it is going -- it is so complicated that i think the court felt almost compelled as a national institution to look at it. >> and i think, lawrence, as i have talked to lawyers about this, what people need to understand is that there is the question of your ability to have benefits. this is not whether the defense of marriage act is completely thrown out. that is that question. and then prop 8 in ca
. when roe v. wade was decided abortion was legal in only four states. you look at the numbers on gay marriage. 1996 compared to today. in 1996 27% of the country thought gay marriage should be valid. by 2012 it's 50%. as someone who works closely on this issue, what do we owe that almost sea change in public opinion to? >> i think a big -- the recent sea change, i think a lot we owe to president obama, his leadership. i think he particularly, the african-american community, i think his speaking out on this has made a big deal. the other thing i think that's made a big deal is the visibility of gay and lesbian people. the more -- the court is not immune to that. the more people meet gay people as their clerk oorz family members or their friends or neighbors, the more they realize that this notion that they shouldn't be able to get married, which is a deeply conservative institution, the idea that two people can't love each other and get -- be in a stable relationship, which is family values, it's ridiculous. that's why we have people like ted olson who is, you know, a very conservativ
by next summer that is groundbreaking for gay marriage rights as roe v. wade was for abortion in the 1970s, potentially at least after they agreed hear arguments on the defense of marriage act and proposition 8. justice correspondent pete williams joins me. pete, the fact that they took both of these cases, what is the significance from your analysis? >> well, it's the prop 8 case, andrea, that could be the biggy. it could be very narrow. the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must permit same-sex marriage, it only says if they do, the federal government must recognize them. so it's the proposition 8 case from california that potentially raise
liberate california or create a gay roe v. wade. s acceptance is only growing. kennedy can only give the gay rights movement a decisive final victory. the train that is the gay rights movement cannot be stopped. gays will continue coming out and demanding rights and suing for equality until they win. because as edie said, marriage matters. the opposition can only build dams to hold off the inevitable tidal wave of justice because we're talking about something fundamental in society, the right to choose your nuclear family without being penalized. the right to have your relationship respected. isn't that what the pursuit of happiness is about? for me the pursuit of happiness though is tossing to martin bashir. >> thank you, toure. and you have stolen some of my time so i'm not going to talk to you. good afternoon. it's monday, december the 10th, and this thing is going to get a whole lot uglier before it gets better. ♪ >> we'd like to announce we have reached an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. >> get in a room and make the changes that are needed. >> it sounds like the pre
. and in 1973 when roe v wade was decided, abortion was legal in only four states. given the court's historic inclination to favor expansion of freedoms, even when public opinion is not on its side, it would seem plausible the justices will conform what a majority believe is right and up hold the constitutionality of marriage equality. if this is in fact the result, president obama will guide one of the last remaining civil rights battles to completion. a moment that may come to define his presidency as much as anything he has done to date. similarly on the subject of immigration, president obama has made clear that comprehensive immigration reform will happen in the next four years. stung by rue milluating losses at the polls in november, the gop understands the problems its faces among the young, the brown and the young and brown. the only question is just how long it takes the republican party to come to terms with this. if conservatives are smart they will try to find a seat at the table. less the president and the democratic party secure the votes of every single one of the 11.1 undocume
assessment of his appointments? >> guest: no republican president has had any luck. i think roe v. wade was an outrageous decision. there is no way you can get it out of the constitution. you have to get it to the ballot box if you want to -- in fact, people were getting it to the ballot box at the time. but your -- i've lost, your question was? >> host: um -- [laughter] lost it for a moment too. one of the questions -- you did bring up another question. >> guest: oh, about nixon. >> host: yeah. he was a tremendously hard worker and student of all kinds of affairs. and i didn't often, i often thought that he was not conservative enough for my taste. it was funny because he was, he thought that all professors were liberals, and he knew i wasn't, but he couldn't really believe it. [laughter] and, well, as a matter of fact, when we left camp david, when i left him, he said it's just too bad you went to yale. i said, i didn't go to yale, i went to the university of chicago. he said, that's almost as bad. he did not like the establishment, as we might call it. but he was an enormously capabl
, roe v. wade was thought to be in imminent peril. and i think what 2012 did was to reconfigure all of that. it feels as if the ice is breaking, as if you had three states for the first time through popular vote, for example, endorse same sex marriage. you had the people of california in a popular referendum vote to tax themselves to address their state's chronic deficit. these are things that may in the long run be as important as the re-election of barack obama. >> woodruff: how do you see this year? >> well, in the '80s and '90s there was a tendency to think that the president, voters who vote for president are center right and the republicans had an varntion '80s and '90s. in the wake of this election, you have to go back to 1988 to find a republican president who was elected by anything other than a squeaker, that probably tells something that i think the electorate, exactly as you are saying, maybe is beginning to shift. >> woodruff: but again, we've had moments in history when one party or another seemed to hit a bend in the road, when when popular opinion changed. michael, a
roe v. wade was thought to be in imminent peril. and i think what 2012 did was to reconfigure all of that. it feels as if the ice is breaking, as if you had three states for the first time through popular vote for example endorse same sex marriage. you had the people of california in a popular referendum vote to tax themselves to address their state's chronic deficit. these are things that may in the long run be as important as the re-election of barack obama. >> woodruff: how do you see this year? >> well, in the '80s and '90s there was a tendency to think that the president voters who vote for president are center right and the republicans had an varntion '80s and '90s. in the wake of this election you have to go back to 1988 to find a republican president who was elected by anything other than a squeaker, that probably tells something that i think the electorate, exactly as you are saying maybe is beginning to shift. >> woodruff: but again, we've had moments in history when one party or another seemed to hit a bend in the road when when popular opinion changed. michael, as you
become more divisive than roe v. wade decision. this was troubling. ruth bader ginsburg who is one of the most liberal justices, she in february questioned the timing of the abortion decision and suggests it may have contributed to the on-going bitter debate about abortion. not that the judgment was wrong but it moved too far, too fast. that was from ginsburg. those are the things that make you worry. a little shpilka in my kinectazoid. chris perry who i love is a lot more selfish than i am. [ applause ] they could have gotten married today if they had not taken the course. she said as much as sandy and i want to be married we want everyone in the united states to be able to be married. we've learned to be patient of the process. what we wanted was the biggest boldest outcome as possible. that's still what i'm hoping for so there! [ applause ] hmm! that's what ted olson thinks. he knows a little something a little something a little something about law. joe in pittsburgh, you're on the "the stephanie miller show
. >>> some are calling it the next "roe v. wade" or brown versus board of education. the issue the u.s. supreme court agreed to take on that will make history. >>> all of those who argued for non-intervention because of the things that might happen have now happened because we failed to intervene. >> when is enough enough? that is the question many are asking about syria as the death toll climbs and concerns mount over chemical weapons. now some lawmakers are saying it may be too late to stop mass destruction. >>> and could this be the end of "gangnam style" mania? why pop sensation psy is apologizing for some anti-american lyrics. [ telephones ringing ] at chevy's year-end event, we have 11 vehicles that offer an epa-estimated 30 mpg highway or better. yeah? hey. hey. where's your suit? oh, it's casual friday. oh. [ male announcer ] chevy's giving more. this holiday season, get a 2013 malibu ls for around $199 per month, or get $1,000 holiday bonus cash. it's hard to see opportunity in today's challenging environment. unless you have the right perspective. bny mellon wealth manageme
headquarters in atlanta, this is "cnn saturday morning." some are calling it the next roe v. wade or brown v. board of education. the issue the u.s. supreme court agreed to take on that will make history. >> all of those who argued for nonintervention because of the things that might happen have now happened because we failed to intervene. >>> when is enough enough? that is the question many are asking about syria, as the death toll climbs and concerns mount over chemical weapons. now some lawmakers are saying it may be too late to stop mass destruction. >>> and a toddler taken from the only parents she ever knew because of a little known federal law. now they're fighting to get her back, and may be on their way to the supreme court. i'll talk with them live. >>> good morning, everyone. i'm randi kaye. it is 10:00 on the east coast, 7:00 on the west. thanks so much for starting your day with us. it was supposed to be just for laughs. humor. the listeners with a lighthearted prank. two radio deejays called the london hospital where the duchess of cambridge was being treated and tricked a nurs
and roe versus wade. he reached out in lawrence versus texas and grutter v. bollinger. those who don't want them to reach out in this case do want them to reach out anytime it helps their cause. maybe they even reached out in allen's case. my point is the court shouldn't just make things up. but they are, to a large extent, a policymaking body. that is what they do. they take cases and they decide broader principles. here we have a very serious problem that justifies a little stretching, not in my opinion to ban racial preferences, and went to socioeconomic components. every other institution in american society has failed to come to grips with this problem. the university systematically misleads applicants over how it works. no major politician has had a case of affirmative action more than 20 years -- excuse me, not 20, but 16 years. we are going to have racial preferences for the next hundred years or more unless the supreme court does something to slow down. >> a nonpolitical ranch of a policymaking body. say it ain't so. [applause] >> comments? >> i would like to talk about what
the women the right guaranteed to them by roe v. wade. even as the new herd presents your fresh faces, it's array of gender and versatility that we in nerdland will take each of you at face value. but will then move on quickly to ask what are your new ideas? at the table, matt welch is editor in chief of reason. editor in reason of chief magazine and the co-author of declaration of independence. conservative writer tara wall was a senior media adviser for. an associate professor of science at columbia university. a fellow at the roosevelt institute and manuel reyes. thanks for having you here. it's nice to have you. >>> tara, welcome to nerdland. >> how did i know you were coming to me first. >> now i would like you to explain your party. >> lay it all on the table. >> in a certain way, it's so early, i feel silly talking about it. but i do think it's important that we not sort of come out of a win as i've seen both parties do in midterm elections or general elections with this narrative, oh, the other party is over. this is the decisive election. i don't think we see anything like that.
of the same-sex marriage issue. that might result in what would essentially be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> thanks for that. >>> back to you, molly. you were doing a big piece of this for "the atlantic" for next week. what did you find most interesting in your research thus far? >> the really amazing thing about this issue is how far public opinion has come in a relatively short time on the scale of sort of large-scale social change. when gallup recently polled public opinion on gay marriage, it had the support of 53% of the american public. back in 1996 that was 27%. and that was the atmosphere in which president clinton and the congress were passing the defense of marriage act. since then, every single appellate court that has considered it has ruled against it. that's something that advocates feel very confident about the supreme court going their way. on the proposition 8 case, advocates are a little bit more nervous. this is a conservative court. and if they do rule against proposition 8 and gay marriage in california, that would strike a blow against gay marriage that could last f
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)